have a good one bud

Fanta,

You aren't getting off that easy. You laughed at the idea that Israeli and Palestinian lands were once controled by the Ottoman empire, you were WRONG. So was your parrot.

"The Jews left in 70AD, the Palestinians never left!!!! "

Not true, the Jews DIDN'T leave. They were taken as slaves. Those who stayed behind lived peacefully with Christians until the Muslim Jihads wherein most were converted or killed. Since you have NO historical perspective, Palestine had people living there BEFORE (yes, before!) Islam. They didn't leave willingly! They were murdered and forced to convert, it's all recorded in the Koran.

"The Christians, following the mighty bible, decided it belong to the Jews and started the Zionist movement!!!! "

No, it wasn't. I don't know if you are lying or you just don't know better. Zionism was founded by Jews, because of the worldwide aggression they faced. Christians had nothing to do with the founding of Zionism. Christian did support the Zionist movement, but what's wrong with that? "Christians tried to help the Jews!" Kind of a stupid thing to complain about, one group of people trying to help another.

Actually years redwine!
It was a war and both sides used it!!

The kurds had allied them selfs with Iran!

The big silver bullet used by Bush and co. was about 50 miles North of Bagdad!!!

Ill get in to it later.

I remember them filling the swamps in the south with dead bodies so their tanks wouldnt get stuck too! They just drove over the bodies! Made a road of sorts! Both sides!!!

Yes Fanta..I know the war with Iran lasted years...but check out operation Alfal..it lasted several months, its all documented not just by witnesses, but also by official orders by Saddam...you will see when you google it or check out the sites I posted...I know both sides used chemical weapons on each other...but this is an extermination plan to kill his own people !

RE how to "win" the war in Iraq. Wars can only result in a true "winner" if no one dies in the conflict. Otherwise there is always loss = always a loser.

There is no way to "not lose" by staying in Iraq. Nor would we "lose" if we left Iraq. Iraq was lost before we ever went there...

Was the situation of some Iraqis helped because we went there? Of course. "Worse" rarely means worse for everyone. Did we/do we have an overall positive impact on the region?

I don't see how anyone could look at what is occuring there or what has occurred there and say, "What a good idea to go, and how well executed that plan was"

the GAO report was released and it didn't look good as far as the iraqi government is concerned but militarily the general and ambassador advised bush to not make any troop withdrawals.

moving up through the ranks and covering ones ass!!

The GAO, Government Accountability Office is an independent bipartisan agency, the Comptroller General is chosen by the president from a list of 3 nominees nominated by a bipartisan panel of 8 senators!

He serves a 15 year term, and can not be fired by the president. He can only be removed by impeachment! This has never happened, ever, since the agency was started in 1921!

The General Petraeus is not the first general Bush has had running the military in Iraq. Just the latest, the others were relieved and replaced. Bush's scapegoat you might say!

He and the Ambassador are required to answer to Bush and Bush alone. He holds their future in his hands!

IMO, I would put more credence in what the GAO reports than in a Bush yes man! But hey what do I know?

i just want to see if this troop surge will work. most of the problems they have over there i think can be fixed by their government getting their **** together and being a true government of the people. until that happens though, nothing will ever change.

r u guys still playing?

playing nicely though. no playground fights yet.lol

how come this evening this was a mess.

are you referring to the discussion about israel LW?

yes, i guess it was about that.

Public Law 110-28 requires GAO to report to Congress by September 1, 2007, on whether or not the government of Iraq has met 18 benchmarks contained in the Act, and the status of the achievement of these benchmarks. The benchmarks stem from commitments first articulated by the Iraqi government in June 2006. In comparison, the Act requires the administration to report in July and September 2007 on whether satisfactory progress is being made toward meeting the benchmarks, not whether the benchmarks have been met. To complete our work, we reviewed government documents and interviewed officials from U.S. agencies; the UN; and the government of Iraq. We also made multiple visits to Iraq during 2006 and 2007. Our analyses were enhanced by approximately 100 Iraq-related audits we have completed since May 2003. (This looks like a pretty thorough hand on investigation)

That was their mission, and still they report Overall, key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds. (This is ten billion of their money, they have spent 100's of billions of ours)

These results do not diminish the courageous efforts of coalition forces. (this is Peterus's only concern!)

I know you read this!
I just wanted to point out a few things for the doubters, so that when "The Bush Report" comes out calling this an unfair assesment everyone will know, "up front," what a lying SOB he is!!

U.S. Comptroller David Walker said Congress should debate whether U.S. troops are there to fight al-Qaida or if their purpose is to provide security to the general population.

"They're fundamentally different things," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday. "I think Congress ought to have a debate . . . what are we going to do and what are going to try to accomplish?"

i think the above statement is right on the mark and if we are to stay in iraq this has to be addressed by the president. handling this as a whole is just too big of a job to do without the help of the iraqi people and could redefine this operation in a lot of peoples eyes.

I dont see a differenc, King!

How can you provide security without fighting and disarming the more than 60% of Iraqis who think its ok to kill American troops!

If you guard the streets and play cop, then you just make our soldiers more of a target!

If you try to go after them, like we have, then you are faced with,
First- finding them,
second- pouring even more troops into Iraq!

The second brings on more problems,

How do you find them, and starting a draft!

70% of Americans already favor an end to the war. A draft will have more people joining the protesting and Vietnam style protests at that!

Iraq has had plenty of time to get their **** together. Instead we are involved in their civil war and they go on vacation!

I say just leave!!!!and I mean exactly that, just leave!
Then they will either sink or swim!!

Good night man!!!

Early day tomorrow! Peace......

i believe there is a difference but it relies on identifying the ones that are al queda and the ones that just cause problems. it won't be done overnight and troops will still get assaulted by non al queda but the iraqi security needs to take a larger role and take some of the load off of them.

have a good night fanta.